Joe Biden says that paying higher taxes is “patriotic”. Today, Obama said that well to do families opposed higher taxes were “selfish”. All of this class warfare and class envy rhetoric begs the question, how progressive a tax system is progressive enough?  Barack Obama would have you believe that the Bush administration and the GOP only want to help the rich get richer. But under the Bush administration, the tax system has gotten more progressive than ever with the top earners paying an even greater percentage of the whole. 

Obama says that it’s still not enough.  That in spite of a tax code that is hugely skewed to “soak the rich” that those higher earners that think enough is enough are “selfish”.  Do the numbers below look selfish to you?

http://journalism.org/node/13436

This is an interesting study just released by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.  It shows that MSNBC is completely in the tank for Obama, no surprise there.  Even NBC News on the broadcast side, mostly Brian Williams and “The Today Show” has run 54% negative stories on McCain with only 21% negative for Obama.

It also shows that the most balanced network for election coverage this cycle is Fox News.  The percentage of stories on Fox News that were negative for each candidate were both exactly 40%.  In fact, Fox News has run a slightly higher percentage of positive stories on Obama than on McCain.

Newspaper coverage is also extremely biased in favor of Obama, with 69% of the reporting on McCain negative, as opposed to 28% negative for Obama.  Of course, most of the big metropolitan newspapers have a strong leftist tilt.

By reneging on his promise to accept public financing, and untraceable contributions pouring in through the internet, Obama has had a 2-to-1 advantage in money.  The press is openly rooting for Obama and promoting his campaign.  Obama complained recently that if it wasn’t for Fox News he would be up another 5 points (yes, those darn Fox guys that are airing the exact same number of negative stories on McCain as Obama).  But what if all the media was playing this campaign down the middle?  Obama would be quite a bit lower in the polls without question.

If you were to randomly select days and watch the tape of Fox News for the day, and tally up the number of people presenting liberal and conservative positions, it would be equally divided.  So why is there this constant drumbeat from the left about Fox News being biased to the right?  If you look at it objectively the claims are irrational.

How do they look past the liberal advocates on Fox News as though they’re invisible and only see the conservative ones?  Guys like Dr. Marc Lamont Hill from Temple University who shows up frequently.  He knows Obama very well and says Obama is too moderate for him.  Dr. Hill is self described as “hard left”.  But he is extremely good at arguing his positions and is quite personable (no angry leftist).  He can go toe to toe with anyone.  You may have heard him on NPR, where he is also a contributor.  There are lots of “Dr. Hill’s” on Fox News every day.

Part of the answer has to be that since the left is so used to seeing the mainstream media without any conservative voices, it is very disorienting to them when they see a network that has both sides.  I guess CNN did add Bill Bennett as their token conservative, much like the NYT’s keeps Bill Kristol around so they can say they present all sides, or Newsweek, which has veered hard left the last few years, signing up Karl Rove while having 10 or so liberal columnists.  The fact that Newsweek publishes a regular op-ed column from the Daily Kos hate site founder Markos Maulitsas Zuniga is disgraceful.

Richard Nixon had outstanding political instincts – of recent presidents only Bill Clinton’s were are good.  But he was thin skinned and mean spirited.  He had his famous enemies list of journalists and others that he deemed too critical.  He lashed out and went after those he deemed against him. 

Obama has shown himself to be similarly thin skinned.  He has never been able to admit he was wrong about anything.  When someone points out a flip flop or something else where he is not being truthful he always attacks the questioner.

So in the last week when Joe Biden got some rare hard questions from two different TV stations they were banned from access to the Obama campaign.  When Joe the Plumber’s question and Obama’s answer open up an uncomfortable line of discussion, Democrats extensively used government computer systems in Ohio to investigate and dig up dirt on him. 

Now the three major newspapers (New York Post, Washington Times, Dallas Morning News) that endorsed McCain have been banned from the Obama press crew authorized to travel on the campaign plane.  The campaign’s explanation was that room was needed to add Ebony and Essence magazine reporters to the plane.  But these are monthly publications with a long lead times to publication, not daily newspapers that need real-time access.

There seems to be a pattern of retribution for dissenting voices in society.  It does not speak well for the Obama campaign or Obama the man.

I have to admit I somehow missed Rashid Khalidi’s name in the world of Obama’s radical associations. In spite of my research into Obama’s dodgy past, I had never heard of him.  Khalidi surfaced in story in the LA Times back in April about a 2003 “going away dinner” for this guy when he left the University of Chicago for Columbia University.  He is a former spokesman for the PLO (yes, Yasser Arafat’s terrorist organization).  As a professor he is considered radical and controversial.

When I dug a little deeper, it turns out that he founded the anti-Semitic “Arab action” organization in Chicago, the same organization that Obama/Ayers channeled money to from the Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Foundation.  The Obama’s and the Khalidi’s appear to have been close, often having dinner together in Chicago.

At this going away dinner, speeches were made and poems recited about the Israeli “terrorists”.  Guess who what at the going away dinner?  Yep, Barack Obama.  And guess who else?  Yep, that guy from Barack’s neighborhood, Bill Ayers and his terrorist wife Ms. Dohrn.  The way Ayers keeps popping up wherever Obama is you’d think he was stalking poor Barack.

The now well known controversy is over the fact that LA Times has a video of the event.  But they are refusing to release it.  Wouldn’t it be interesting to see how Obama reacts to all the hate speech and adulation of the former PLO spokesman?  The power of moving pictures can be quite powerful.

I think the time that many Americans first realized that Obama was fundamentally dishonest was when he declared that in spite of attending United Trinity Church of Christ approximately 500 times, he had never hear Reverend Wright make divisive statements.  Now mind you, Wright’s controversial statements were not spirited out on some right-wing infiltrator’s cell phone.  They were on DVDs being sold in the church lobby.  It is also interesting that Black Liberation Theology has much of its roots in Marxism.

Ayers, Dohrn, Palmer, Wright, Phlegar, Farrakhan, Michelle Obama’s comments, Marxist professors, Acorn, Project Vote, and now Khalidi. If McCain has had a long-standing relationship with even a single neo-fascist, could he even run for President? The greatest double standard in the history of American politics continues.

It is amazing how often and how fast Obama’s tax story changes.  How many times have you heard Obama say that if you are a family making less than $250,000 you will get a tax cut?  Now it seems the number is getting lower all the time (now all the way down to $150,000).  The most important concept for people to “get” is not the actual number, but that Obama believes in broad redistribution of wealth as a fundamental principle of governing.  That he believes that he has the right to take from achievers what they have worked hard for and earned and reallocate it to people he deems deserve it more in the name of “fairness”. 

An insightful vignette was in an interview with one of the broadcast networks a while back.  Obama was challenged by the reporter that raising capital gains taxes had in the past lowered revenue to the government.  Obama acknowledged that that was true, but then said that that didn’t matter.  Capital gains taxes needed to be raised for the sole purpose of “fairness”.  This is what scares conservatives, and should scare a great many more people in this country.  Obama has deeply held beliefs that it is OK to enact economic policies that are not good for the economy, or will be detrimental to tax revenue to the federal government, in order pursue an agenda of “fairness” (read: “wealth redistribution”).  Obama’s economic policies have nothing to do with economics, they are social policies.

In the 2001 Chicago radio interview he described in the perfectly clear terms of a law professor that the Constitution does not provide for wealth redistribution, and then proceeds to say we should do it anyway.  In another recorded snippet that is now out, Obama laments that the “fundamental flaw” in the Constitution “to this day” is that it does not provide redistributive restitution.  Combine this with Obama’s focus on judges that use “empathy” to create rights when the Constitution is silent on a subject.  How long will be before there is a Constitutional “right” to welfare and a Constitutional “right” to the redistribution of wealth as a remedy for “injustice” and “oppression”?

If you read what Barack Obama has written, especially “Dreams of My Father”, and look at the professors whose classes he sought out (Marxist), and listen to what he has said over the years before he was a presidential candidate, and look at the people he has been close to and given money to, there are deep Marxist themes throughout.  It should give pause to any American of any political party.

In a single month the Obama campaign raised $150M.  In a single month, the Obama campaign raised a quarter off all the money raised by both the Kerry and Bush campaigns combined in 2004.  $100M of the September came in over the Internet.  How did Obama do it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803413_pf.html

The Washington Post is now reporting that the Obama campaign has been accepting contributions  from untraceable pre-paid credit cards.  So Obama agrees with McCain that he will accept public financing.  Then, when he realizes he can out raise and outspend McCain through private contributions he reneged on that commitment.  Now Obama has figured out how to illegally skirt contribution limits and the money is rolling in at unprecedented amounts.  This very likely could result in the first special prosecutor being named in an Obama presidency.  But by then, the presidency will already have been bought and paid for.

In addition to the organizations I previously mentioned in my post, "The Chicago Annenberg Challenge Had Nothing to do with Improving Education", like Acorn, new details have emerged on the radical groups that received money from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Foundation.

One recipient was Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University, which was founded and run by Bernardine Dohrn.  Ms. Dohrn is Bill Ayers wife and also a terrorist.  At one time she was on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted list.  You want to know the main difference between Timothy McVeigh and Ayers/Dohrn?  Ayers/Dohrn just weren’t very good at what they did.

I previously mentioned the Small Schools Network, founded by Ayers, which received Annenberg Challenge money.  It turns out it was run by Michael Klonsky, a friend of Ayers' and the former chairman of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist).

I also previously mentioned that money had gone to the South Shore African Village Collaborative (SSAVC).  In its grant application to the Annenberg Challenge has now been made public and states:

"Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us."

Jacob Carruthers and Asa Hilliard were brought in by CAC to conduct “consciousness raising” seminars for SSAVC teachers.

Carruthers is a strident Afrocentrist whose writings include the following:

"The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy," Carruthers wrote in his 1999 book, "Intellectual Warfare." "Some of us have chosen to reject the culture of our oppressors and recover our disrupted ancestral culture."

He also compares the process of blacks assimilating into American culture with rape.  It sounds like Carruthers and Reverend Wright are two sides of the same coin.

Hilliard is a major promoter of the pre-eminence of ancient black culture, such as arguing that the ancient Egyptians were the first to discover manned flight.  I'm not saying Hilliard is right or wrong, just that this is not a belief that is widely held by scholars.

Money was also doled out to the anti-Semitic group, Arab American Action Network, as well as that beacon of racism, anti-Semitism and hate, United Trinity Church of Christ.

I'll pose the same question as in my original post.  What if the reciprocal was true and McCain had given money to similarly radical groups but on the other side of the spectrum (read “fascist”)?  What if McCain had been a member of some wacko white supremacist church for 20 year and then claimed to never heard anything that was divisive?

Why is it OK for Obama to have been immersed in the most radical, separatist elements of American society for 20 years but is certainly would not be OK for McCain to have done the same on other extreme?  It truly bewilders me.

This was Joe Biden yesterday in Greensboro, NC, speaking at East Carolina University before a croud of 1,500.

I have held out hope that a bright spot in what is looking more and more like an Obama presidency would be his commitment to bring in the very best and brightest into the administration.  Then I heard that a trial balloon was being sent up for John Kerry to be Secretary of State.

John Kerry had a lower GPA than the much maligned “W” at Yale, so I guess he was either not a hard worker or not too bright.  His fellow Vietnam officers, almost to a man, called him a liar regarding his stories of firefights across the Cambodian border on Christmas eve (still waiting for those military records to be released, Senator).  Upon returning to the states, he testified before Congress on the most horrible atrocities committed by U.S. soldier in Vietnam.  These tales were later debunked as the made-up angst of Winter Soldier origin.  They were lies.  As a senator Kerry has been hostile and disrespectful to the U.S. military, attributing more false atrocities to them.  I imagine as Secretary of State he would find it confusing as to what country he was supposed to be an advocate for.

From Colin Powell to Condi Rice to John Kerry?  Talk about a drop-off in talent.  Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, first black Secretary of State, universally respected.  Condi Rice, child protégé, PhD, Provost of Stanford, world respected expert in Russian affairs, fluent in Russian.  Given Putin and the resurgence of Russian, perhaps Condi could teach Senator Kerry a little Russian before she vacates Foggy Bottom.  “Nyet”, might be a good start.

I hear reports that Obama has a team of more than 300 foreign policy experts.  You cannot really have 300 foreign policy advisors that you truly rely on for advice and counsel.  I fear that Obama has a tendency to cast too wide of a net in the optimistic hope of an epiphany of consensus.  In spite of all of that advice, he has made too many statements on foreign policy he later had to disown.  In the pantheon of recent Secretaries of State, John Kerry would rank below Powell, Rice, Eagleburger (I really liked him) and Baker, probably equal to Christopher, and definitely above Albright.

My thanks to Amanda Carpenter for highlighting the Kerry 2004 campaign's “field manual” for election day with its focus on GOP voter suppression efforts.  The manual said that signs to look for are lines that seem too long and faulty voting machines that seem to take a little too long to be repaired. This is the best the GOP can do?  Lines that are a bit too long and a few voting machines that are slow to be fixed?  If the GOP is trying to suppress votes, which I do not believe they do in a systemic way, then they clearly aren’t very good at it!

But the most interesting part of the field manual followed next.  It instructed the Kerry campaign workers that, “If no signs of intimidations have emerged…launch a ‘pre-emptive strike.’”  The manual goes on to describe how to accuse the GOP of voter suppression even if none exists, and provides talking points to use with the local media to gin up (false) stories about GOP voter suppression.  Very nice.

The Obama campaign continues the Democrat’s tradition of accusing the GOP of voter suppression where none exists.  This comes from ”the best defense is a good offense” playbook.  The Obama campaign has labeled any attempt to direct attention to, or investigate, voter registration fraud as “voter suppression”.  Yes, we should all just look the other way as Obama ground game surrogates Acorn and Project Vote submit hundreds and hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voter registrations. 

It is interesting that accusations the GOP of voter fraud are extremely rare.  Don’t you think that if there was even a hint of it that the Democrats would be all over it?  But you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting well documented examples of Democrat voter fraud.  It is much easier for the Democrats to simply manufacture accusations of voter suppression that don’t require any facts (like those darn hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voter registrations).

The question here is not one of is there isolated voter suppression or voter fraud perpetrated by individual rouge operatives for either party.  I’m sure we can find a few outliers in both parties.  The question is are there systemic and widespread coordinated efforts by either campaign to do these things?

What is the ultimate goal of Acorn’s generating of massive numbers of fraudulent voter registrations, many of which are easily screened out, other less so?  I will offer some possible answers, based on the premise that it makes no sense to run a program for 30 years that knowingly generates huge numbers of fraudulent registrations unless there is an ultimate “end game”.  Just running a bad operation every election cycle is not a plausible explanation.  As we say down south, "That dog won't hunt."

Many times Acorn will hold large numbers of registrations and then dump them on local election boards at the very last minute allowed by law.    It seems clear this is an effort to overwhelm local election officials with more registrations than they can possibly vet before the election.  Perhaps the Democrats know that the obvious fraudulent registrations will be caught (e.g., Mickey Mouse) but some will get through that they can use.  Perhaps they want to create confusion at the polling places on election day so Democrats can gin up stories about voter suppression.  Perhaps Acorn’s activities are so obviously fraudulent on such a massive scale it diverts attention (and local election official’s bandwidth) from Democrat party operatives perpetrating fraud through more difficult means to detect – dead people and felons that are still on the voter rolls.  In the 2000 election, 5,600 felons voted in Florida (reported in 2001 by the Palm Beach Post) in an election that was decided by 500 votes. 

So riddle me this.  Polling precinct sites are located in their local communities and are staffed by volunteers from the local community.  Let’s say there is a precinct that is has a largely minority population and usually vote Democrat.  It is going to be staffed by local volunteers that are largely minorities and vote Democrat.  It seems like a difficult argument that these local community volunteers are going to suppress their neighbors’ votes (by creating long lines, I guess).  Is the GOP somehow infiltrating these volunteers with sleeper agents that have taken up residence in the local community, only to be activated on election day to create long lines?  I think Frank Sinatra and Angela Lansbury were in the movie version. 

I did some looking into this topic of “empathy”.  Barack Obama also talks a lot about “heart” when considering whether a judge is suitable for the Supreme Court.  Senator Obama voted against confirmation for both Justices Roberts and Alito.  Chief Justice Roberts is as judicially qualified and impressive a legal thinker as anyone in a very long time. 

Prior to his confirmation vote, Obama issued a press release that included the following:

Part of the culture of the University of Chicago Law School faculty (where Obama taught for 10 years) is to maintain a sense of collegiality between those people who hold different views. What engenders respect is not the particular outcome that a legal scholar arrives at but, rather, the intellectual rigor and honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision.

Given that background, I am sorely tempted to vote for Judge Roberts based on my study of his resume, his conduct during the hearings, and a conversation I had with him yesterday afternoon.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95 percent of the cases that come before the Federal court -- adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts.

Wow, it sounds like the description of a man who should be confirmed by affirmation.  Then comes the ever predictable “Obama but”.  Obama states his concern that there are a small number of cases where “the constitutional text will not be directly on point.”  Here is where Obama’s “empathy” and “heart” come into play.  He cites several examples such as supporting a “general right to privacy” (nowhere in the Constitution) and its application to abortion, and using the Commerce Clause to empower “…Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce…”.  Many hold that Congress has severely abused the Commerce Clause to justify legislation that goes far beyond the framers’ intent.

The “constitutional text will not be directly on point” is code for the Constitution is silent on the subject.  If the Constitution is silent, then Obama’s view is that judges should apply their personal ideology to make a decision in the name of “empathy”.  This often translates into liberal social policies being enacted by the judiciary that advocates have not been able to accomplish legislatively.  For example, in a death penalty case this year, Justice Anthony Kennedy considered his “own experience” when interpreting the Eighth Amendment.  Are you kidding me?   What kind of self—aggrandized power is that?

Deborah Malley, writing for the Heritage Foundation, states the following:

Yet it is clear that Americans do not want the personal opinions of nine unelected judges “shaping” their destiny. A recent survey conducted by the Polling Company on behalf of the Federalist Society found that a whopping 71 percent of likely Ohio voters want the next president to nominate Supreme Court justices who will “interpret and apply the law as it is written and not take into account their own viewpoints and experiences.”

Judges should not be selected on whether they are liberal or conservative.  That is a complete misunderstanding of the judicial process.  In no way do I believe that McCain would nominate judges based on being politically conservative.  I believe he would follow the model he has consistently stated and followed in his career as a Senator: to select judges based on their ability to put political preferences aside and interpret the Constitution and laws based on their original meaning.

Joe Biden’s statement in the VP debate that ideology is important in evaluating judges, and Obama’s statements that empathy must be applied when the Constitution is silent [read “make it up”], confirm my worst fears.  Obama rejects that some cases are not constitutional issues, but solely legislative issues.  He also believes that parts of the Constitution should be stretched to their tangential limit, far beyond the framers’ intent, to justify social policies.

This is another affirmation of why I can vote for McCain but not for Obama.  One of Obama’s main points in the video below is that the most important factor in evaluating someone for the Supreme Court is “empathy”.   I have no idea what “empathy” has to do with correctly interpreting the Constitution.  Either the Constitution says something or it does not. 

http://townhall.com/video/FoxNews/2176_081021-212312_102108_OBAMA_SCOTUS_B1200

Obama also makes some comments in the video about making sure the executive branch does not encroach on the other branches.  I guess this is a swipe at the Bush administration, but only goes to prove Obama is poor student of history.  I guess this was not at subject that was taught at Harvard.  The fact is that the legislative branch has been encroaching on the executive branch for 30 years, not the other way around, ever since Congress overroad a presidential veto to pass the War Powers Act.  Every president since, Republican or Democrat alike, has held the War Powers Act to be unconsititutional.

Obama’s surrogates then spell out the real issue, that Obama believes that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that must be interpreted according to today.  This indicates a legal relativism that opens the way to say the Constitution means whatever a judge wants it to mean.  There is no objective test.  But they don’t want an objective test.  Otherwise they could not justify their decisions - decisions that accomplish goals that the left cannot accomplish legislatively.

I believe, as does McCain, that the Constitution is not a living document and must be read in accordance to what the people who wrote it, and ratified it, intended it to mean.  If the world we live in changes, and we need to change the Constitution accordingly, then by all means, then let’s change it.  But conjuring  a meaning that has nothing to do with what the writers meant is just creating “law” out of thin air, usually in the name of some social policy advocacy.

Fox News did the same 3 minute piece on McCain.  No surprises or revelations.  It just says he will nominate judges that will be constructionists and originalists.  He will nominate judges like Roberts and Alito.

Interestingly, the oldest judges on the court are also the most likely to expand the Constitution beyond what it actually says.  That means that even if Obama wins, it is likely that Obama will only be able to maintain the number of judges on the Supreme Court that apply their ideology to “interpretations” of the Constitution. 

This is consistent with Biden’s answer to the question in the VP debate about what he has learned over the years in the Senate.  He said he has learned that ideology is important in evaluating judges.  Obama and Biden and the left want to select judges based on empathy and ideology rather than on what the Constitution actually says - relativism and social advocacy trumping an objective test.

Interpreting the Constitution by any means other than what the people who wrote it actually meant is not being intellectually honest.

The agreed to ad hominem attack regarding Sarah Palin is to call her an "airhead".  Click on the comments of any Palin article on The Huffington Post and the the nasty personal attacks are nothing if not consistent.  I have never seen so many false aspersions cast on anyone so quickly and violently as when Sarah Palin arrived on the national scene.  Apparently anyone who does not support leftist positions and has never been on Meet the Press must be stupid.

No one who has seen Governor Palin on the campaign trail lately could honestly defend that charge.  She is performing very impressively.  She talks to the press every day at stops and “on the plane” now and answering a broad range of questions with very thoughtful and clear answers.  Her stump speech has new material every day and is delivered in a professionally crisp and hard-hitting manner.  Today she used Joe Biden’s comments about a President Obama being tested by our enemies to reel off a list of potentially dangerous international scenarios that would be more likely based on Obama’s policies.  It was well done and effective. 

After a bit of a bumpy start she has come into her own.  Excluding some questions that most politicians could not have answered, she has done fine.  She did have one question from Katie Couric where her answer was complete gibberish.  But compare that to Joe Biden every day.  The media made a big deal out of the fact that she didn’t answer Couric’s question about where she gets her news.  But if you watch the tape, Palin was clearly exasperated with the question, and had a look of “enough of this nonsense”.  Couric condensation was so thick you could have cut it with a knife.  I guess the implication was that Palin was some backwoods rube who did not read the NYT’s every day.  It would have been fun for Palin to respond, “Not from CBS News”.  But I digress.

Calling Governor Palin an airhead is ridiculous and not constructive.  She is an intelligent, articulate candidate with extremely good political instincts.  You don’t take on the incumbent governor of your own party, in a state where the political machine mirrors Chicago, only republican, and win to become the most popular Governor in America without having real talent. 

Of course I don’t think anyone should expect that a Governor of Alaska was going to instantly have a detailed knowledge of all foreign policy and national policy issues.  Vice Presidential candidates are not as policy wonks.  They are chosen for political reasons, usually to shore up a particular region or swing state.  Palin has been held to a standard that is unprecedented in the history of VP selections.

In Obama’s case he “blinked” and chose someone that only highlighted his inexperience, and showed he was not strong enough to put Hillary on the ticket.  In fact, I cannot think of another VP candidate in my lifetime that was selected because of supposed foreign policy knowledge.  McCain chose someone with strong conservative principles that fits his focus on reform – not for policy knowledge.  She has proven her reputation as a quick learner and a disciplined and talented politician. 

You may not agree with her positions, but she is no airhead.  Win or lose on November 4^th, you’re going to be seeing Sarah Palin for a long time to come.

• He didn’t realize that Tony Rezko was a crook.
• He thought Bill Ayers was just a guy in his neighborhood; then he thought Ayers was rehabilitated.
• He couldn’t find a single U.S. Military person who thought the surge would work.
• He thought all those trips to the Soviet Union by Alice Palmer were for the Borsht.
• He never knew that Reverend Wright was a racist, America-hater.
• He didn’t realize that legislators actually are supposed to vote.
• He thought Father Phlegar should play Father Flanagan in the remake of "Boy's Town".
• He assumed all that money from he got from Fannie and Freddie was just because he was a nice guy.
• He figured that Acorn was just poor at record-keeping.